Dear Adel,

I am sorry in the delay in replying you. I did not check the replies. You also did not inform me.

If you are having any doubts in my calculations or my essay, we can discuss. No problem.

Still,

I think we form a picture of anything in our mind, and keep them in our memories. We communicate about that picture to others, which we call information. When we die we loose all these pictures and memories.

Now in this context, can we create material from information...?

You can discuss with me later after this contest closes also.

Best

=snp

snp.gupta@gmail.com

Hi Torsten,

Thank you for evaluating my essay, we have had some exchange in physicsforums about your theory before. You asked very good questions.

The answer to the higher modes is easy, yes it can be done (and I have actually done it). It is an automatic consequence of schrodinger equation result. As a matter of fact I get the 1/r law precisely because of the inclusion of higher modes automatically.

To answer your question what forced choice I have to reiterate some background. After considering some choices that could be the entities where some relation could give a rise to reality I end up with the simplest of systems ,which is a line segment. So I ask what entities exist on this line, answer is point and smaller line segments. So the how to choose the points or the line segments so that I may find what possible relations might exist and see if these relations lead to any useful outcome.

Since there is NO particular reason to choose any specific one so I choose randomly. Without this randomness which is the heart of the system any possible universe that you create by particular choice will lead to either a static or semi-static universe (as in fractals and regular automata). A similar principle is very nicely explained in Sundance Bilson essay which he calls "the principle of minimal arbitrariness ". Also a similar idea is mentioned in the essay of Armin Shirazi which you must have seen.

Also, may I remind you that the Born rule in standard physics has caused so much controversy as to its origin, well my system shows clearing why that must be so. And generally you can see the whole results of the system from it inception to advanced results like the electron mass all showing up in one coherent system with no tweaking or fancy stunts, by doing just what I am allowed to do on the line.

Of course I am familiar with almost 95 %(or more) of all the ways people have tried to generate QM from "first principles". But I believe mine is the most fundamental one because as you can see I claim some powerful results. Now, if people want to declare that is too good to be true, that is their choice. However, as an unfamiliar concept I think it will take some time to sink in and I also need to do a better job making the presentation.

Finally, you might be surprised that our theories share the most important concept of physics and that is the SAMENESS of matter and space. in my system matter is made of many lines (which is nothing but a distance between two points) where their end points are space. it is as simple as that.

The problems in your system and all others has been the problem of time. Even if as Barbour has done(and some other foliation systems and such) to remove time, still that leads to complication. In my system time naturally does not appear, again, that shows the system is fundamental from its inception.

I have rated your essay highly, you do not have to do that for me. Your response and reading this long boring response is good enough for me!

P.S. gravity is also included, I will show some details later.

Many thanks.

Adel

Posted from my discussion area:

Adel,

you have to choose uncountable real random numbers uniformly. Every real number has the probability zero to choose.

But you are right, it sounds impossible to do.

Now to my further questions:

There are gaps in the explaination. So, I tried to fill these gaps by thinking about. But your answer showed me, I was wrong.

My main problem is on page 3, the red part. Up to this place everything is clear to me. But how did you get the Schrödinger equation and more importantly what is the wave function. Before you spoke about random lines etc. (and I assumed you have a probability distribution for these random lines, then the dynamics is given by a Fokker-Planck equation etc. etc.)

Interestingly, your simulation results (Fig 3, 4 and 5) support my assumption: you simulate the probability distribution of a Fokker-Planck equation (with constraints, i.e. you put it in the box). This Fokker-Planck equation has the same ground state then the Schrödinger equation (but a probability distribution has to be positive everywhere).

I wrote my PhD thesis about this connection (using it in the evolutionary algorithms). The correct name is Fisher-Eigen equation (a reaction diffusion equation)

Show me where I'm stupid to follow you.

Best

Torsten

    Adel,

    I found your approach to the topic at hand intriguing and would like to rate your essay highly. However, before I do may I run some questions by you via email? Please let me know at: msm@physicsofdestiny.com

    I look forward to hearing from you.

    Regards,

    Manuel

      Hello, QSA, thanks for your comments on my essay.

      Now they've ive gotten to read yours I like the algorithms.

      Hi Torsten,

      Thank you very much for your detailed analysis of my theory, it was the most pleasant surprise and the real reason for joining the contest.

      In short, Probability density is what I get from my system. I get the SOLUTION of SE for a particular setup translated into probability density, but not SE per se. Sorry for the sloppy use of the word wave instead of "the probability density".

      Since I will be travelling in the next few weeks for my vacation with my family I cannot elaborate too much now. But it is interesting that I had looked at Wiener process early on as a possible link. The nice/strange thing about my theory it links to so many established ideas in physics that is too difficult to pursue a particular one. But I think I am going to give your hint much more time.

      Also one important link that I found is that my system seems to be a generalization of Buffon's needle in the sense that both the needle and the lines become random in size. And that leads a series of connections to :

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffon's_needle

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral_geometry

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radon_transform

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penrose_transform

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twistor_theory

      Thanks again for your generous help, and hopefully elaborate more in the future.

      Adel

      Hi Sadeq,

      Thank you for a fascinating look at the power of a simple computational model.

      You might enjoy the computational model that I develop in my essay Software Cosmos. I take more of a top-down view, exploring the consequences of looking at the cosmos as a software simulation. I hope you get a chance to read it to see if your model might be compatible with it.

      Hugh

      Hi Adel,

      Thanks for the reply above! I look forward to the material you find, as I think it is good that we are both people who like to explore the Universe in a detailed way fundamental way.

      I will rate your essay now top marks. Please have a read of mine and rate if you get chance. I'd appreciate any comments you have for me too.

      Very best wishes,

      Antony

        Adel,

        I first passed over your abstract, but am new very glad I read your essay. An excellent presentation of an intriguing model. I'm not a mathematician (though I studied it decades ago) and expected little commonality with my geometrical approach but found unexpected potential and a new insight, so a high scorer if only for that!

        I was interested in your resolution of the correspondence between cardinalised maths and curvature, or the line and the circle. I derive uncertainty from the change in that relation with theta and/or the line position, but in 3D+t with the torus and helix. I would be most grateful if you would read and comment on my proposals.

        I most anticipated your comments on spin and EPR. I hope my own addressing of this may shed some light on your 'very strange results'. This leads direct to the EPR case where as far as I can tell you suggest the same particle orbital topology that I describe to resolve the case and unify the SR and QM view without FTL. Thopugh very different I think our essays are then equally radical and 'groundbreaking!' (as someone referred in my blog). I hope you agree mine worth a equally high score.

        With regard to maths I find that fractal recursive gauges or 'sample spaces' can decode the 'noise' of uncertainty stage by stage, but a distinction at observable scales between the uncertainty of nature and precision of mathematics is required to rationalise the requited approach.

        An excellent job, well done. I hope you make the final cut and look forward to your views.

        Very best wishes

        Peter

          Dear Adel Hassen,

          We are at the end of this essay contest.

          In conclusion, at the question to know if Information is more fundamental than Matter, there is a good reason to answer that Matter is made of an amazing mixture of eInfo and eEnergy, at the same time.

          Matter is thus eInfo made with eEnergy rather than answer it is made with eEnergy and eInfo ; because eInfo is eEnergy, and the one does not go without the other one.

          eEnergy and eInfo are the two basic Principles of the eUniverse. Nothing can exist if it is not eEnergy, and any object is eInfo, and therefore eEnergy.

          And consequently our eReality is eInfo made with eEnergy. And the final verdict is : eReality is virtual, and virtuality is our fundamental eReality.

          Good luck to the winners,

          And see you soon, with good news on this topic, and the Theory of Everything.

          Amazigh H.

          I rated your essay.

          Please visit My essay.

          • [deleted]

          • Post #60

          Hi Manuel,

          Thanks for reading my essay, I have read yours and rated it good long time ago. I am on vacation with family with little time to spare.

          Thanks

          Adel

          Hi Antony,

          Yes, I have rated yours highly. I am on vacation now, I will comment later. Thanks

          Adel

          Hi Peter,

          Thanks for reading my essay, I have read yours many times. I am on vacation now, I will comment later. I have rated your essay. Thanks

          Adel

          Dear Adel,

          I have now finished reviewing all 180 essays for the contest and appreciate your contribution to this competition.

          I have been thoroughly impressed at the breadth, depth and quality of the ideas represented in this contest. In true academic spirit, if you have not yet reviewed my essay, I invite you to do so and leave your comments.

          You can find the latest version of my essay here:

          http://fqxi.org/data/forum-attachments/Borrill-TimeOne-V1.1a.pdf

          May the best essays win!

          Kind regards,

          Paul Borrill

          paul at borrill dot com

          Write a Reply...